undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsstrogonoff6mo ago0 comments

> I see technological advancement as inevitible and good.

It’s false, simply because it is a product of human effort and human choice to do this or the other.

> A robot that can do jobs so that humans don't have to is a good thing. It's progress

A “good thing” is what benefits humans. Robots replacing humans at what humans choose to do for their own benefit is decidedly not a good thing—aside from humans who profit from running the robots.

You may have noticed that I am repeating myself[0]. You are yet to show how this benefits humanity in a way that outweighs harm to humans who lose their jobs (especially considering many of them provided, without consent, the data instrumental for the robots to work in the first place). If you are among the people who work on robots, I think you ought to pause and reflect.

> The wealthy already own and control everything.

“They” don’t. A lot of “them” are here, by the way. Wealth gap is high, but to say it’s absolute (100% is owned by the rich and we are all just slaves for them) is simply wrong. We should work towards decreasing the gap, not increasing it.

[0] I am basically reiterating my original comment:

> “robots are coming for your jobs” is a valid argument against robots even if they can do those jobs better and faster, under two assumptions: 1) humans benefit from having jobs and 2) human benefit is the end goal.

0 comments

thunky6mo ago

> You are yet to show how this benefits humanity in a way that outweighs harm to humans who lose their jobs

I think it's pretty obvious if you think beyond trying to protect the status quo. The benefit is simply that machines do work so humans don't have to. It's no more complicated than that. It's what we humans have always strived to do: to make our lives easier. It's why an electric screwdriver exists.

The fact that making our lives easier has become a problem is the actual problem. We should address that problem instead of trying to protect it.

strogonoffOP6mo ago

> The benefit is simply that machines do work so humans don't have to.

Why is it a benefit? Because not having to work the ultimate ideal? Why would that be the case?

To me it seems like it’s only an ideal for those who wield the robots who do the work and profit from that, not to people who wouldn’t be able to do compensated work if they wanted to. (Ultimately, it’s a means of control: if there are no jobs, the people in power get to decide how to distribute sustenance to jobless population. Rest assured, that population will not dare to bite the hand that feeds them.)

The ideal is to be able to choose to do work you enjoy doing, feel pride in it, get fairly compensated for it. To not be able to do this seems like a strongly negative outcome.

> making our lives easier has become a problem

Is “easier life” the ultimate ideal? Why? There’s many other, more compelling things it could be (e.g., “fulfilled”, “happy”, “meaningful”, “satisfying”) and many of them are not exactly aligned with “easy”.

Even if easier life was your ideal, the precedent has been that automation does not lead to that—we are doing more work (and more challenging, a.k.a. the opposite of “easy”, work) instead[0]. As jobs go away, whoever is still lucky to have one gets getting paid less to do more work (that’s just market forces at work), while a small minority profits and benefits from more accumulated power. Is that what you want to happen? If yes, we don’t have anything to discuss further. If not, you have the power to be part of the change.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45656916

thunky6mo ago

> Is that what you want to happen? If yes, we don’t have anything to discuss further. If not, you have the power to be part of the change.

I think I've been pretty consistent that I think the change necessary is a social/political one, not a tech one. Whether or not we're capable of this change is another question.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

thunky6mo ago

> You are yet to show how this benefits humanity in a way that outweighs harm to humans who lose their jobs

The fact that making our lives easier has become a problem is the actual problem. We should address that problem instead of trying to protect it.

strogonoffOP6mo ago

> The benefit is simply that machines do work so humans don't have to.

Why is it a benefit? Because not having to work the ultimate ideal? Why would that be the case?

The ideal is to be able to choose to do work you enjoy doing, feel pride in it, get fairly compensated for it. To not be able to do this seems like a strongly negative outcome.

> making our lives easier has become a problem

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45656916

thunky6mo ago

> Is that what you want to happen? If yes, we don’t have anything to discuss further. If not, you have the power to be part of the change.

I think I've been pretty consistent that I think the change necessary is a social/political one, not a tech one. Whether or not we're capable of this change is another question.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse